Detransition: Myths and Facts

[c_cubed51]

To assist rowlf in his research of transgender issues, I post the link to a podcast dealing with the issue of detransition.

Episode 16: Detransition, Myths and Facts

[Ursula Harrison]

If you're minded to listen to this propaganda Rowlf, you should know that Kelly Nelson is one of the moderators that has Crossdressers..com in a hammer lock deleting all dissent and throwing dissenters such as me off the site.

Her definition of truth is something that she says is true.

[Alteredbhoy]

27 minutes ago, Ursula Harrison said:

If you're minded to listen to this propaganda Rowlf, you should know that Kelly Nelson is one of the moderators that has Crossdressers..com in a hammer lock deleting all dissent and throwing dissenters such as me off the site.

Her definition of truth is something that she says is true.

Rowlf will probably appreciate it then. His definition of truth is something the wants to be true.

[c_cubed51]

58 minutes ago, Ursula Harrison said:

If you're minded to listen to this propaganda Rowlf, you should know that Kelly Nelson is one of the moderators that has Crossdressers..com in a hammer lock deleting all dissent and throwing dissenters such as me off the site.

Her definition of truth is something that she says is true.

rowlf, you should know that I have been through all the forums on cd.com, and on none of them is Kelly Nelson a moderator.

Another instance of laziness in the art of fact-checking on the part of a prejudiced anti-trans person (although, to be fair, Ursula is unable to do a complete fact check, as she has been banned from the site. I presume, though, that she could have checked the forums which are publicly accessible.

[Ursula Harrison]

12 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

rowlf, you should know that I have been through all the forums on cd.com, and on none of them is Kelly Nelson a moderator.

Another instance of laziness in the art of fact-checking on the part of a prejudiced anti-trans person (although, to be fair, Ursula is unable to do a complete fact check, as she has been banned from the site. I presume, though, that she could have checked the forums which are publicly accessible.

There's only one forum visible to non-members, or at least there was when I was a member.

"Aunt" Kelly is as good as a moderator as her posts are treated as gospel and several friends of mine on the site have had posts deleted for disagreeing with her and been threatened with expulsion if they persist.

The most ridiculous example being her claiming that one of her podcasts which was totally about Trump and the GOP had nothing to do with politics.

[Ursula Harrison]

18 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

a prejudiced anti-trans person

This again... 🙄

[c_cubed51]

12 minutes ago, Ursula Harrison said:

There's only one forum visible to non-members, or at least there was when I was a member.

"Aunt" Kelly is as good as a moderator as her posts are treated as gospel and several friends of mine on the site have had posts deleted for disagreeing with her and been threatened with expulsion if they persist.

The most ridiculous example being her claiming that one of her podcasts which was totally about Trump and the GOP had nothing to do with politics.

You are lazy, aren't you? There are four forums which are publicly accessible.

Kelly Nelson is not the only person whose comments one does not dare to criticize. I know this only too well, as many of my posts have also been deleted. So I have learned to be circumspect, which is something you appear to find a bit a of a struggle, Ursula.

The only thing I can say about your confused and confusing last paragraph, is that cd.com does not allow any posts dealing with guns, politics or religion. You know that.

[Ursula Harrison]

1 hour ago, c_cubed51 said:

The only thing I can say about your confused and confusing last paragraph, is that cd.com does not allow any posts dealing with guns, politics or religion. You know that.

My point was that some are allowed to claim their posts as non-political when they are anything but. Anyway I said

1 hour ago, Ursula Harrison said:

one of her podcasts

which she sometimes references on the site.

[c_cubed51]

10 minutes ago, Ursula Harrison said:

My point was that some are allowed to claim their posts as non-political when they are anything but. Anyway I said

which she sometimes references on the site.

You mean, like podcast 14, which referenced this issue, and gave the link as part of the podcast?

Parents, doctors sue Texas to block transgender minor health care ban | KXAN Austin

Mmm ... it does become a tad tricky when American politicians try to stifle the rights of citizens based solely on their preferred gender.

Should the rule against political posts trump (haha!!!) the stated aim of the site, which is to promote the interests of the trans community?

You and I will probably disagree on this matter.

[Alteredbhoy]

11 hours ago, Ursula Harrison said:

This again... 🙄

Strange that you support this when rule 3 states you have the right to be treated with courtesy, Ursula, when you always state that you also have the right to offend.

Or is it only YOU who has the right to be treated with courtesy?

[Ursula Harrison]

6 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

Strange that you support this when rule 3 states you have the right to be treated with courtesy, Ursula, when you always state that you also have the right to offend.

Or is it only YOU who has the right to be treated with courtesy?

Just like you to pick out 3.7% and ignore the other 96.7%.

But, since you ask, I do not claim that right. It would be my preference of course but I'm not being oppressed if it's denied me. If I felt that way I'd never be on this forum would I?

[Ursula Harrison]

9 hours ago, c_cubed51 said:

You and I will probably disagree on this matter.

At least we are in agreement about something.

[Sarah_Connor]

14 hours ago, Ursula Harrison said:

This again... 🙄

Oh for fucks sake. It's like Jordan Peterson's 9 rules to live by.

Except it's stupider.


8. If you use the word electric in front of the word vehicle you're not a vehicle, you're an electric vehicle. Where does this bullshit come from?

[rowlf]

Anyone on this forum that cannot understand the privacy of a woman in a ladies restroom is a Neanderthal mofro. It doesn't matter how many crocodile tears that you shed for the transperson that wants to invade this area. If this transperson is truly a woman in all intents and purposes, then she should understand the psyche of a cis woman and respect the privacy they so much desire. I understand that a transwoman out in public need a place to go potty. But I don't think a cis woman's privacy should be invaded to do so.

The same goes for sporting events. I read an article not too long ago. I think it was about the woman that boxed a transwoman and received a broken facial bone. She stated was it unbelievable that a biological man could hit so hard. I know, boxers get broken bones at times, and I suppose it's the 'new norm'. And have you thought about the POS that would want to break a woman's face? Or a man that can lift 100's of lbs. more than the women and create a high record that nobody but a fellow transwoman could be able to beat? Is this what you would consider fair for the woman that has made a lifetime commitment to achieve a status in a particular field?

I asked ab if he was happy with a daughter being subjected to these things. He couldn't answer, saying it was a 'loaded question'. I asked cubed if he would agree with these trans issues if it was connected to the other party. No comment. 

I'd hate to belong to a group, where I couldn't freely state my own mind and voice my opinions w/o being stifled. And because you haven't the freedom of speech, you want the rest of us stifled.

It's amazing how you can surrender all those freedoms people fought and died for...... in exchange for a big screen tv.

And the Big Giant Head lives on.

[rowlf]

 

[Alteredbhoy]

26 minutes ago, rowlf said:

I understand that a transwoman out in public need a place to go potty. But I don't think a cis woman's privacy should be invaded to do so.

You see. There precisely is the rub.

You know a transgendered women need to use restrooms as much as cis-women. You know transgendered women pose very little threat to cis-women, certainly nowhere near as much threat as men pose to both. But you force transgendered women into a position where they are at much greater risk using the men's restroom, than they pose to cis women.

You are wanting to protect one group from a slight threat, despite putting another group at a much greater risk.

And if transgendered women are to be made to use male restrooms, then presumably transgendered men have use female restrooms. And I would wager that cis-women are at much greater risk from transgendered men, than from transgendered women.

So your effort to punch down on the transgendered not only increases quite significantly the risks for them, but also probably for cis-women too.

It is plain transphobic discrimination over a trivial matter. But those right wing news outlets and the Republican Party wanting to persuade you that somehow "normal" people are at risk, makes you imagine all sorts of victims.

Edited September 2 by Alteredbhoy

[Alteredbhoy]

19 minutes ago, rowlf said:

It's amazing how you can surrender all those freedoms people fought and died for...... in exchange for a big screen tv.

This is a sign of your paranoia.

Nobody fought and died to give bigoted old white men the right to determine which restroom women should use.

My grandfather came to the England 90 years to fight against Fascism and racial hatred, not to defend a society that punches down on minorities.

I suggest you go to your local library and ask the librarian where you can find the books on paranoia. He or she will probably beckon you forward and whisper, "They are right behind you". 

[dappi]

4 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

You see. There precisely is the rub.

You know a transgendered women need to use restrooms as much as cis-women. You know transgendered women pose very little threat to cis-women, certainly nowhere near as much threat as men pose to both. But you force transgendered women into a position where they are at much greater risk using the men's restroom, than they pose to cis women.

You are wanting to protect one group from a slight threat, despite putting another group at a much greater risk.

And if transgendered women are to be made to use male restrooms, then presumably transgendered men have use female restrooms. And I would wager that cis-women are at much greater risk from transgendered men, than transgendered women.

So your effort to punch down on the transgendered not only increases quite significantly the risks for them, but also probably for cis-women too.

It is plain transphobic discrimination over a trivial matter. But those right wing news outlets and the Republican Party wanting to persuade you that somehow "normal" people are at risk, makes you imagine all sorts of victims.

It is an enormous waste of time trying to use common sense or reason with rowlf. He loves the attention and enjoys spouting rubbish arguments.

[rowlf]

6 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

You see. There precisely is the rub.

You know a transgendered women need to use restrooms as much as cis-women. You know transgendered women pose very little threat to cis-women, certainly nowhere near as much threat as men pose to both. But you force transgendered women into a position where they are at much greater risk using the men's restroom, than they pose to cis women.

You are wanting to protect one group from a slight threat, despite putting another group at a much greater risk.

And if transgendered women are to be made to use male restrooms, then presumably transgendered men have use female restrooms. And I would wager that cis-women are at much greater risk from transgendered men, than transgendered women.

So your effort to punch down on the transgendered not only increases quite significantly the risks for them, but also probably for cis-women too.

It is plain transphobic discrimination over a trivial matter. But those right wing news outlets and the Republican Party wanting to persuade you that somehow "normal" people are at risk, makes you imagine all sorts of victims.

You worry too much about something that consists of only 0.002% of the population. You need to start speaking Chinese instead of sniffing around the terlits in Brussels. I would suggest the Mandarin dialect. But it will be difficult for a man your age to learn such a difficult tongue.

[Alteredbhoy]

20 minutes ago, rowlf said:

You worry too much about something that consists of only 0.002% of the population. You need to start speaking Chinese instead of sniffing around the terlits in Brussels. I would suggest the Mandarin dialect. But it will be difficult for a man your age to learn such a difficult tongue.

You are the one that has an issue with where transgendered women go to the toilet, not me. I'm happy to let them decide for themselves.

Trying to make out that I am the one causing the issue is typical gaslighting.

You are the one wanting to make and enforce rules to restrict the normal bodily functions of 0.2% of the population (your figure is out by a factor of 100). If it is such a small number, why are concerned by it? It is after all, no big issue, but you bring it up in almost every topic?

[Alteredbhoy]

24 minutes ago, rowlf said:

You worry too much about something that consists of only 0.002% of the population. You need to start speaking Chinese instead of sniffing around the terlits in Brussels. I would suggest the Mandarin dialect. But it will be difficult for a man your age to learn such a difficult tongue.

You are the one that has an issue with where transgendered women go to the toilet, not me. I'm happy to let them decide for themselves.

Trying to make out that I am the one causing the issue is typical gaslighting.

You are the one wanting to make and enforce rules to restrict the normal bodily functions of 0.2% of the population (your figure is out by a factor of 100). If it is such a small number, why are concerned by it? It is after all, no big issue, but you bring it up in almost every topic?

[rowlf]

14 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

You are the one that has an issue with where transgendered women go to the toilet, not me. I'm happy to let them decide for themselves.

Trying to make out that I am the one causing the issue is typical gaslighting.

You are the one wanting to make and enforce rules to restrict the normal bodily functions of 0.2% of the population (your figure is out by a factor of 100). If it is such a small number, why are concerned by it? It is after all, no big issue, but you bring it up in almost every topic?

Why are you concerned about it?

[rowlf]

15 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

You are the one that has an issue with where transgendered women go to the toilet, not me. I'm happy to let them decide for themselves.

Of course, you are. But men don't belong there. Once they remove their junk, we can then start discussing it.

[Alteredbhoy]

48 minutes ago, rowlf said:

Why are you concerned about it?

I don't like unnecessary discrimination or the people who seek to discriminate.

You've admitted that it's a minor issue, but you want to legislate to prevent it happening. You always spout about big Government and not wanting the Government to interfere in your rights. But here you are advocating for more Government regulation, providing it doesn't affect you.

You want freedom to do what you want, but laws to prevent others from doing so.

[Alteredbhoy]

48 minutes ago, rowlf said:

Of course, you are. But men don't belong there. Once they remove their junk, we can then start discussing it.

Of course. All you are interested in is genitalia.

What is it about the genitalia of the transgendered that fascinates you so much?

[rowlf]

6 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

Of course. All you are interested in is genitalia.

What is it about the genitalia of the transgendered that fascinates you so much?

You know what I mean, don' cha? It's that thing that goes 'bob, bob, bobbing along with you.

[rowlf]

9 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

I don't like unnecessary discrimination or the people who seek to discriminate.

You've admitted that it's a minor issue, but you want to legislate to prevent it happening. You always spout about big Government and not wanting the Government to interfere in your rights. But here you are advocating for more Government regulation, providing it doesn't affect you.

You want freedom to do what you want, but laws to prevent others from doing so.

There's a thing called ethics and morality. It kinda gets in the way of cruising on the gravy train. It's the choices man makes in his life that gets him a good seat 'up yonder'. Layabouts need not apply!

[rowlf]

13 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

I don't like unnecessary discrimination or the people who seek to discriminate.

You've admitted that it's a minor issue, but you want to legislate to prevent it happening. You always spout about big Government and not wanting the Government to interfere in your rights. But here you are advocating for more Government regulation, providing it doesn't affect you.

You want freedom to do what you want, but laws to prevent others from doing so.

What about the rights of the cis women. That just want to crap in peace? Do they have any rights at all? Or should it be decided by the 'free riders' of life. I think we know.

[Alteredbhoy]

12 minutes ago, rowlf said:

What about the rights of the cis women. That just want to crap in peace? Do they have any rights at all? Or should it be decided by the 'free riders' of life. I think we know.

You know, that's exactly par for the course. Cis-women have the same rights to use in whichever restroom they feel most comfortable. Exactly the same in my view as transgendered women.

You seem to suggest that they should have the right to restrict the rights of others, even put them in danger.

I imagine your grandpa argued the same way as you are now when it was suggested that restrooms shouldn't be divided by race. I can just hear him saying that "Our women can't be expected to sit in a cubicle next to an ethnic who has eaten God knows what gas inducing spicy food and is probably squatting with her feet on the seat."

[Ursula Harrison]

8 hours ago, Ursula Harrison said:

If I felt that way I'd never be on this forum would I?

And right on cue:

6 hours ago, Sarah_Connor said:

Oh for fucks sake. It's like Jordan Peterson's 9 rules to live by.

Hi Penelope! How are you? I hope that you are well and that your good lady's high profile endeavours continue to bring her success and fulfilment.

6 hours ago, Sarah_Connor said:

Except it's stupider.

Well, that's certainly one way to look at it but I see it as more like this:

Be seeing you!

Oh, by the way, give my love to Kittekat.

[rowlf]

2 hours ago, Alteredbhoy said:

You know, that's exactly par for the course. Cis-women have the same rights to use in whichever restroom they feel most comfortable. Exactly the same in my view as transgendered women.

You seem to suggest that they should have the right to restrict the rights of others, even put them in danger.

I imagine your grandpa argued the same way as you are now when it was suggested that restrooms shouldn't be divided by race. I can just hear him saying that "Our women can't be expected to sit in a cubicle next to an ethnic who has eaten God knows what gas inducing spicy food and is probably squatting with her feet on the seat."

You're at the bottom of the barrel. You have no choice but to mirror the thoughts of your 'betters' There's no place left for you libs to go. Until the Commies come calling. You could have done something to prevent this but chose not to.

[rowlf]

57 minutes ago, Ursula Harrison said:

 

Yep! This is happening for a very specific reason. But the 'compassionate' ones can't see beyond their food stamps.

[rowlf]

On 01/09/2023 at 14:01, c_cubed51 said:

To assist rowlf in his research of transgender issues, I post the link to a podcast dealing with the issue of detransition.

Episode 16: Detransition, Myths and Facts

I don't need to read no fooking books.....

[c_cubed51]

1 minute ago, rowlf said:

I don't need to read no fooking books.....

I realize this - you can't even listen to a podcast.

[Alteredbhoy]

26 minutes ago, rowlf said:

You're at the bottom of the barrel. You have no choice but to mirror the thoughts of your 'betters' There's no place left for you libs to go. Until the Commies come calling. You could have done something to prevent this but chose not to.

That's it rowlf. Unable to argue your position so resort to nonsensical abuse.

The "commies are coming" because we don't restrict female restrooms to cis-women only and except for certain Neanderthals, don't punch down on minorities.

You are brainless.

Edited September 2 by Alteredbhoy

[rowlf]

11 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

I realize this - you can't even listen to a podcast.

My sources told me it would be a waste of time. I concurred.

One of these days you may very well discover that we can't keep taking w/o giving. It creates a dangerous imbalance.

[rowlf]

2 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

That's it rowlf. Unable to argue your position so resort to nonsensical abuse.

I just speaks da truth...

[c_cubed51]

My maternal grandmother went behind a tree in the bush. I have used a communal long drop, as, I am almost certain, have all of you. Privacy? Not an issue back then! It's only in the last ten years or so that a certain segment of society, who are desperate to sow fear amongst the gullible ones, have raised this non-issue as a health and safety hazard. What a couple of precious, pious people we have here, claiming the moral high ground, while ignoring the multiple risks their idiotic policies pose to the very people they claim to be trying to protect. Sickening!

Ladies loos have lockable cubicles. Many trans women have had their 'junk' removed. The stats tell us that sexual assaults by trans women on cis women in public restrooms simply never happen!!! 

“Should transgendered women be allowed to use female restrooms?” Those who live in fear of some random trans woman possibly sexually assaulting a cis woman in the female restroom should gain some relief from the statistics.

Stats NZ survey finds 4.2 percent of population is LGBT+ with 0.8 percent transgender | Newshub

If we assume the population of NZ is 5 million, then 0.8% of us, or 40,000 of us, identify as transgender. The report also states that 33.2% of those who identify as transgender are trans women. That is 40,000 x 33.2%, which is 13,280 New Zealanders in total who are in the category of potentially dangerous molesters of cis women such as you and your daughters.

Now let us look at the stats for people in NZ who commit sexual molestation, and their victims. We begin by noting that only 6% of all incidents of sexual molestation are reported.

Ninety-four percent of sexual assaults go unreported - survey | RNZ News

How many cases of sexual offending were reported in 2022? According to the website below, 1,785 cases. [I had to add up 12 figures to get this total.]

Sexual assault and related offences in New Zealand - Figure.NZ

Assuming that this is 6% of the actual total, then the real total is about 29,750 cases in 2022. Let’s say 30,000 cases for ease of calculation.

I was surprised to discover that, in 2022, the number of males in NZ was very similar to the number of females. So, for ease of calculation, let’s assume 2,500,000 males in 2022. The total population was actually 5,124,100 persons.

I was not able to find a definitive percentage of sex offenders in NZ by sex. But world-wide, the percentage for cis males who commit sex offenses varies between 94% and 97%. So, to inflate the stats we want to consider, let’s assume 94% of sex offenders in NZ are cis males. Using our approximate number of sexual offences estimated above (30,000), we find that about 28,200 of them are estimated to have been committed by cis men in NZ. Which leaves 1,800 sexual violations which were committed by people of other genders.

[Note – this ignores repeat offenders!]

Of the remaining 6% of offences, or 1,800 offences, let’s assume that 33.2% of 0.8%, or 0.002656% of them are committed by trans women. That equates to fewer than 5 sexual offences a year, potentially committed by trans women in NZ. (The actual figure is 0.002656 x 1,800 = 4.7808).  

So, of the roughly 30,000 cases of sexual molestation which are estimated to have occurred in NZ in 2022, only 4 or 5 are statistically estimated to have been committed by these people you are so frightened of!!! And none of them has occurred in a public female toilet.

And I have not taken repeat offending into account. So probably fewer than 4 separate offenders.

Here is the cruncher.

Untitled (d2l.org)

It focuses on children in NZ. 

 

 

 

Edited September 2 by c_cubed51

[rowlf]

13 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

My maternal grandmother went behind a tree in the bush. I have used a communal long drop, as, I am almost certain, have all of you. Privacy? Not an issue back then! It's only in the last ten years or so that a certain segment of society, who are desperate to sow fear amongst the gullible ones, have raised this non-issue as a health and safety hazard. What a couple of precious, pious people we have here, claiming the moral high ground, while ignoring the multiple risks their idiotic policies pose to the very people they claim to be trying to protect. Sickening!

Ladies loos have lockable cubicles. Many trans women have had their 'junk' removed. The stats tell us that sexual assaults by trans men on cis women in public restrooms simply never happen!!! 

“Should transgendered women be allowed to use female restrooms?” Those who live in fear of some random trans woman possibly sexually assaulting a cis woman in the female restroom should gain some relief from the statistics.

Stats NZ survey finds 4.2 percent of population is LGBT+ with 0.8 percent transgender | Newshub

If we assume the population of NZ is 5 million, then 0.8% of us, or 40,000 of us, identify as transgender. The report also states that 33.2% of those who identify as transgender are trans women. That is 40,000 x 33.2%, which is 13,280 New Zealanders in total who are in the category of potentially dangerous molesters of cis women such as you and your daughters.

Now let us look at the stats for people in NZ who commit sexual molestation, and their victims. We begin by noting that only 6% of all incidents of sexual molestation are reported.

Ninety-four percent of sexual assaults go unreported - survey | RNZ News

How many cases of sexual offending were reported in 2022? According to the website below, 1,785 cases. [I had to add up 12 figures to get this total.]

Sexual assault and related offences in New Zealand - Figure.NZ

Assuming that this is 6% of the actual total, then the real total is about 29,750 cases in 2022. Let’s say 30,000 cases for ease of calculation.

I was surprised to discover that, in 2022, the number of males in NZ was very similar to the number of females. So, for ease of calculation, let’s assume 2,500,000 males in 2022. The total population was actually 5,124,100 persons.

I was not able to find a definitive percentage of sex offenders in NZ by sex. But world-wide, the percentage for cis males who commit sex offenses varies between 94% and 97%. So, to inflate the stats we want to consider, let’s assume 94% of sex offenders in NZ are cis males. Using our approximate number of sexual offences estimated above (30,000), we find that about 28,200 of them are estimated to have been committed by cis men in NZ. Which leaves 1,800 sexual violations which were committed by people of other genders.

[Note – this ignores repeat offenders!]

Of the remaining 6% of offences, or 1,800 offences, let’s assume that 33.2% of 0.8%, or 0.002656% of them are committed by trans women. That equates to fewer than 5 sexual offences a year, potentially committed by trans women in NZ. (The actual figure is 0.002656 x 1,800 = 4.7808).  

So, of the roughly 30,000 cases of sexual molestation which are estimated to have occurred in NZ in 2022, only 4 or 5 are statistically estimated to have been committed by these people you are so frightened of!!! And none of them has occurred in a public female toilet.

And I have not taken repeat offending into account. So probably fewer than 4 separate offenders.

Here is the cruncher.

Untitled (d2l.org)

It focuses on children in NZ. 

 

94-97% males are sex offenders?

[c_cubed51]

12 minutes ago, rowlf said:

94-97% males are sex offenders?

94 - 97% of sexual offences are carried out by cis males. As I said, reading for understanding is not your forte.

Be sure to read  the last link, rowlf.

Edited September 2 by c_cubed51